Jump to content

The 01-06-21 Select Committee Thread

Satchel

By Satchel
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46982

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To elaborate, the district court's decision was not a "final" decision, but a decision on a preliminary injunction against the Archives from delivering up the documents to the Committee.  That decision did contain an evaluation of Trump's argument regarding privilege, but the case remained pending in the district court for a full trial and decision "on the merits."  But, the cat was about to be let out of the bag, rendering subsequent proceedings essentially moot.

Because the district court's order granted or denied (denied) injunctive relief, it was immediately appealable to the DC Circuit, which affirmed the district court on the denial of the injunction.

Trump then took it up to the Supreme Court asking that they enjoin delivery of the documents while the petition for certiorari (to consider the ruling more fully_ was pending.  The Supreme Court denied that injunction, basically agreeing with the DC Circuit and district court.  Classic "shadow docket" stuff.

But the cert petition remained pending.  And was just now denied, in no small part because the "cat was out of the bag" due to the prior rulings.  In theory, at least, the case returns to the district court for further proceedings.  But, the documents have been released, the cat is out of the bag, and there likely will be no further proceedings.

These kinds of cases, where the main relief is injunctive, that is, an order to do or not do something in the short term, are always going to "evade" full review "on the merits" via petition for certiorari because there is rarely anything left to fight about after the injunction is granted or denied.

Is that in English?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Genco
Genco
brakeman
brakeman
Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Just to be clear, an official of the United States government AND a licensed attorney.....just asserted to Congress that his actions in assisting the Trump administration with respect to the admin's a

Posted Images

Genco

Genco 3053

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To elaborate, the district court's decision was not a "final" decision, but a decision on a preliminary injunction against the Archives from delivering up the documents to the Committee.  That decision did contain an evaluation of Trump's argument regarding privilege, but the case remained pending in the district court for a full trial and decision "on the merits."  But, the cat was about to be let out of the bag, rendering subsequent proceedings essentially moot.

Because the district court's order granted or denied (denied) injunctive relief, it was immediately appealable to the DC Circuit, which affirmed the district court on the denial of the injunction.

Trump then took it up to the Supreme Court asking that they enjoin delivery of the documents while the petition for certiorari (to consider the ruling more fully_ was pending.  The Supreme Court denied that injunction, basically agreeing with the DC Circuit and district court.  Classic "shadow docket" stuff.

But the cert petition remained pending.  And was just now denied, in no small part because the "cat was out of the bag" due to the prior rulings.  In theory, at least, the case returns to the district court for further proceedings.  But, the documents have been released, the cat is out of the bag, and there likely will be no further proceedings.

These kinds of cases, where the main relief is injunctive, that is, an order to do or not do something in the short term, are always going to "evade" full review "on the merits" via petition for certiorari because there is rarely anything left to fight about after the injunction is granted or denied.

spacer.png

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14572

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

They probably have enough evidence of Trump’s communications at this point that I imagine the committee didn’t concede very much plus they don’t have to enter a drawn out contempt battle in federal court 

Yeah, the highlight of that tweet is the second part--"but is poised to divulge in a cooperation deal that could be agreed this week his contacts with Republican members of Congress involved in effort to overthrow the 2020 election"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Rudy will be taking questions afterwards at Capitol Title, the place to go for your D.C. real estate closing needs.  Conveniently located just blocks from Capitol Hill:

https://capitoltitle.com/

Also, not shocking this the course Rudy is taking.  He won't give up Trump, but he'll give up the Congressman and Cabinet Members who will in turn give up Trump (some of them anyway).  Elected officials in our own Congress plus Cabinet are all far more glamorous to the 1/6 Committee than an insane ex-lawyer who probably wasn't cognitively aware of this shit.   Kinda strange that Rudy doesn't understand that considering how many hundreds of deals like this he cut as a prosecutor/DA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8248

Posted
Posted
On 2/23/2022 at 12:10 PM, TwiceHorn said:

To elaborate, the district court's decision was not a "final" decision, but a decision on a preliminary injunction against the Archives from delivering up the documents to the Committee.  That decision did contain an evaluation of Trump's argument regarding privilege, but the case remained pending in the district court for a full trial and decision "on the merits."  But, the cat was about to be let out of the bag, rendering subsequent proceedings essentially moot.

Because the district court's order granted or denied (denied) injunctive relief, it was immediately appealable to the DC Circuit, which affirmed the district court on the denial of the injunction.

Trump then took it up to the Supreme Court asking that they enjoin delivery of the documents while the petition for certiorari (to consider the ruling more fully_ was pending.  The Supreme Court denied that injunction, basically agreeing with the DC Circuit and district court.  Classic "shadow docket" stuff.

But the cert petition remained pending.  And was just now denied, in no small part because the "cat was out of the bag" due to the prior rulings.  In theory, at least, the case returns to the district court for further proceedings.  But, the documents have been released, the cat is out of the bag, and there likely will be no further proceedings.

These kinds of cases, where the main relief is injunctive, that is, an order to do or not do something in the short term, are always going to "evade" full review "on the merits" via petition for certiorari because there is rarely anything left to fight about after the injunction is granted or denied.

 

On 2/23/2022 at 12:16 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Is that in English?

It's a classic case of go ask your mom.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46061

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Link to court filing for law dogs 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21321582-house-select-committee-filing

The fucking 1/6 committee is like the fucking Entmoot.  "After months of debating, we have decided, dotard mcfuckface MAY have done something untowards.  We'll debate for another year and get back to you, after the statute of limitations has run out and/or the Rs have taken back over and dismantled what's left of this joke of a government."

gun-to-head-nodding.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NWBuck

NWBuck 8621

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

The fucking 1/6 committee is like the fucking Entmoot.  "After months of debating, we have decided, dotard mcfuckface MAY have done something untowards.  We'll debate for another year and get back to you, after the statute of limitations has run out and/or the Rs have taken back over and dismantled what's left of this joke of a government."

gun-to-head-nodding.gif

Now don't be hasty, young Master Tannen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31993

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

The fucking 1/6 committee is like the fucking Entmoot.  "After months of debating, we have decided, dotard mcfuckface MAY have done something untowards.  We'll debate for another year and get back to you, after the statute of limitations has run out and/or the Rs have taken back over and dismantled what's left of this joke of a government."

gun-to-head-nodding.gif

We keep telling you to cool your jets and be patient.  This is really good shit.

This isn't the product of a "debate," it is the product of sifting through a shit ton of evidence and getting on record those they need to support a case.  It's really solid work.  I am somewhat surprised, to be honest.

Sometimes you act like a 10 year old.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46061

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

We keep telling you to cool your jets and be patient.  This is really good shit.

This isn't the product of a "debate," it is the product of sifting through a shit ton of evidence and getting on record those they need to support a case.  It's really solid work.  I am somewhat surprised, to be honest.

Sometimes you act like a 10 year old.

I3tRvx.gif

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
yoladu

yoladu 4187

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Fascinating Eastman and Jacob email exchange laid out here.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/03/politics/trump-january-6-committee-eastman-email/index.html

On January 6 at 12:14 pm ET, as it was becoming increasingly clear that there was a Trump-inspired riot brewing at the US Capitol, Jacob was unequivocal in his rejection of Eastman’s theories.

“I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results-oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up,” Jacob wrote Eastman. “And thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.”

To which Eastman responds: “The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened.”

In his next response, Jacob drops the hammer: “The advice provided has, whether intended or not, functioned as a serpent in the ear of the President of the United States, the most powerful office in the entire world. And here we are.”

Jacob went on:

“Respectfully, it was gravely, gravely irresponsible for you to entice the President with an academic theory that had no legal viability, and that you well know we would lose before any judge who heard and decided the case. And if the courts declined to hear it, I suppose it could only be decided in the streets. The knowing amplification of that theory through numerous surrogates, whipping large numbers of people into a frenzy over something with no chance of ever attaining legal force through actual process of law, has led us to where we are.”

Edited by yoladu
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46982

Posted
Posted
Quote

“Respectfully, it was gravely, gravely irresponsible for you to entice the President with an academic theory that had no legal viability, and that you well know we would lose before any judge who heard and decided the case. And if the courts declined to hear it, I suppose it could only be decided in the streets. The knowing amplification of that theory through numerous surrogates, whipping large numbers of people into a frenzy over something with no chance of ever attaining legal force through actual process of law, has led us to where we are.”

Dayum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
TexasEd

TexasEd 8248

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Reading transcript of the interview of Peter Donoghue in the Oct 1, 2021 interview before the Jan 6 Committee.  This is from Eastman case

https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Wood-Decl.-Ex.-B.pdf

This section about a meeting in the Oval office where Clark is lobbying Trump to fire Rosen and put him (Clark) in charge of the DOJ is great to read. Ignore the line numbers from the transcript.

Quote

And so the President said, "Well, suppose I do this" -- I was sitting directly in front 3 of the President. Jeff Rosen was to my right; Jeff Clark was to my left. The President 4 said, "Suppose I do this, suppose I replace him," Jeff Rosen, "with him," Jeff Clark, "what 5 do you do?" And I said, "Sir, I would resign immediately. There is no way I'm serving 6 1 minute under this guy," Jeff Clark. 7 And then the President turned to Steve Engel, and he said, "Steve, you wouldn't 8 resign, would you?" And Steve said, "Absolutely I would, Mr. President. You'd leave 9 me no choice." 10 And I said, "And we're not the only ones. You should understand that your 11 entire Department leadership will resign. Every AAG will resign." I didn't tell him 12 about the call or anything, but I made it clear that I knew what they were going to do. 13 And I said, "Mr. President, these aren't bureaucratic leftovers from another 14 administration. You picked them. This is your leadership team. You sent every one 15 of them to the Senate; you got them confirmed. What is that going to say about you, 16 when we all walk out at the same time? And I don't even know what that's going to do 17 to the U.S. attorney community. You could have mass resignations amongst your 18 U.S. attorneys. And then it will trickle down from there; you could have resignations 19 across the Department. And what happens if, within 48 hours, we have hundreds of 20 resignations from your Justice Department because of your actions? What does that say 21 about your leadership?" 22 So we had that part of the conversation. Steve Engel, I remember, made the 23 point that Jeff Clark would be leading what he called a graveyard; there would be no one 24 left. How is he going to do anything if there's no leadership really left to carry out any of 25 these ideas?

 

They had to play to his vanity to stop him from doing something so wrong tells you all you need to know.  

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 12
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31993

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Reading transcript of the interview of Peter Donoghue in the Oct 1, 2021 interview before the Jan 6 Committee.  This is from Eastman case

https://openargs.com/wp-content/uploads/Wood-Decl.-Ex.-B.pdf

This section about a meeting in the Oval office where Clark is lobbying Trump to fire Rosen and put him (Clark) in charge of the DOJ is great to read. Ignore the line numbers from the transcript.

 

They had to play to his vanity to stop him from doing something so wrong tells you all you need to know.  

 

True, and insightful.  Moar rep needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
TexasEd

TexasEd 8248

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

 Then there was this:

Quote

I made the point that Jeff Clark is not even competent to serve as the Attorney 2 General. He's never been a criminal attorney. He's never conducted a criminal 3 investigation in his life. He's never been in front of a grand jury, much less a trial jury. 4 And he kind of retorted by saying, "Well, I've done a lot of very complicated 5 appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that." And I said, 6 "That's right. You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, 7 and we'll call you when there's an oil spill."

Kelso Burn GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, yoladu said:

Fascinating Eastman and Jacob email exchange laid out here.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/03/politics/trump-january-6-committee-eastman-email/index.html

On January 6 at 12:14 pm ET, as it was becoming increasingly clear that there was a Trump-inspired riot brewing at the US Capitol, Jacob was unequivocal in his rejection of Eastman’s theories.

“I have run down every legal trail placed before me to its conclusion, and I respectfully conclude that as a legal framework, it is a results-oriented position that you would never support if attempted by the opposition, and essentially entirely made up,” Jacob wrote Eastman. “And thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.”

To which Eastman responds: “The ‘siege’ is because YOU and your boss did not do what was necessary to allow this to be aired in a public way so the American people can see for themselves what happened.”

In his next response, Jacob drops the hammer: “The advice provided has, whether intended or not, functioned as a serpent in the ear of the President of the United States, the most powerful office in the entire world. And here we are.”

Jacob went on:

“Respectfully, it was gravely, gravely irresponsible for you to entice the President with an academic theory that had no legal viability, and that you well know we would lose before any judge who heard and decided the case. And if the courts declined to hear it, I suppose it could only be decided in the streets. The knowing amplification of that theory through numerous surrogates, whipping large numbers of people into a frenzy over something with no chance of ever attaining legal force through actual process of law, has led us to where we are.”

Now, we know why Eastman invoked his 5th amendment right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...